The inconvenient cure for homelessness

The inconvenient cure for homelessness

In the United Kingdom, there were almost 160,000 households experiencing the worst forms of homelessness in 2016, according to homelessness charity Crisis. They predict that if we carry on ignoring the problem, this is expected to almost double in the next 25 years. While the vast majority of homeless people are in temporary accommodation such as hostels or night shelters, or staying with friends, there are increasing numbers of people forced to sleep on the streets, evidenced by a short walk through any town centre, particularly London.  

Homelessness is generally related to a breakdown in your social network; you get disconnected from people and end up in a situation where you can no longer afford a home. Whether this is losing your job, having to leave home, fleeing domestic abuse, suffering a crisis such as a fire or flooding, or being evicted, the underlying reasons for homelessness are many, and rarely is the individual at fault. The 2016 Homelessness Monitor for England found the majority of the increase in homelessness over the previous five years was attributable to the sharp rise in people made homeless from the private rental sector with ‘services overwhelmed by the knock-on consequences of wider ministerial decisions, especially on welfare reform’. But homelessness can happen to anyone and while there may not be one single shared cause for it, all people experiencing homelessness share the same needs: affordable housing, suitable income and healthcare.

Affordable housing is the crucial point: people need greater entitlement to a home, as Crisis says, which will give them the best chance to recover their health, get a job, and feel part of society again. The number of houses needed? 100,500 every year for the next 15 years.

This may seem unattainable, particularly with the shortage of housing across the UK already, but Finland has proved it’s possible. Housing First is a scheme introduced to Finland in 2007, built on the principle that having a permanent home makes solving health and social problems much easier. People in need are given permanent housing on a normal lease, which could be a self-contained apartment or a housing block with 24/7 support. Tenants pay rent and are entitled to receive housing benefits; depending on their income, they may contribute to the cost of the support services they receive with the rest covered by local government. Since the scheme started, thousands of people have benefitted as Finland used its existing social housing, bought flats from the private market and built new housing blocks to provide enough homes—every homeless shelter was turned into supported housing. While this costs money, Juha Kaakinen, chief executive of Y-Foundation, a social enterprise providing housing to this scheme, says there is ‘ample evidence from many countries that shows it is always more cost-effective to aim to end homelessness instead of simply trying to manage it. Investment in ending homelessness always pays back, to say nothing of the human and ethical reasons.’

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP estimates the total cost of supporting homeless people to end homelessness between 2018 and 2041 is £19.3 billion which would deliver benefits to society of £53.9 billion in saved costs, contributions to the workforce and eased pressure on healthcare services. Makes sense, right?

Convincing the public to foot this bill, however, is a vertiginous challenge. The UK government could absolutely afford to provide housing for every person suffering homelessness, either by shifting spending priorities or by raising taxes: currently, about 120,000 households in England apply for ‘homelessness assistance’, with around half of them rejected. Assuming an average £100 per week in rent (which is a reasonable price for cheap housing in many places), housing these people would cost around £300 million per year: a drop in the ocean compared to the total £240 billion spent on welfare across the board. Convincing the public to put this small change towards fixing homelessness is perhaps even less likely than convincing them raising taxes is a good idea. A politician will not proceed with proposals such as these at the risk of losing voters.

Unfortunately, the messages the public receives about homelessness reinforce the negative stereotypes and the attitudes towards homelessness and any possible solutions. Capitalist societies the world over perpetuate the notion that if you don’t put your work boots on and slog forwards, you’ll get left behind, and it’s this idea that leads people to believe those experiencing homelessness have only themselves to blame. In fact, with reasons as varied as there are for homelessness, individuals are rarely at fault for their situations—meaning everyone should be viewed as equally worthy of housing. In many industrialised countries, housing is a basic human right, along with education and healthcare, but in the UK, people must be assessed and meet five criteria to receive assistance. Even then, while local councils have a legal duty to help people, not everyone gets help with housing—some people just get advice on how to find a home. Temporary emergency accommodation such as hostels or shelters are not a long-term solution but most homelessness policies work on the premise that the homeless person should sort their own situation out first before they can receive permanent housing. Imagine how much easier it would be for people suffering homelessness in the UK if we followed Finland’s example. A study by Crisis found a policy of this kind in the UK could be five times as effective and almost five times more cost-effective than the existing services.

Simple: if someone has lost their home, give them one.

But even if the public were convinced housing first was the best policy, the NIMBY concept rears its head: few people want a social housing block in their neighbourhood. All new-build developments across the UK must now provide a portion of their plots to local governments for social housing and people tend to be quite unhappy about this. Despite integrated solutions like this helping people in receipt of these houses feel more connected to society and, really, like people again, the proposals are often met with backlash.

Consider the situation people in Hull are facing this week; after Raise the Roof Hull secured bookings for several people in The Royal Hotel, said hotel cancelled the bookings with no explanation, leading the charity to conclude this must have been discrimination. The hotel has since claimed it cancelled the booking for fear of damage to the rooms, following the alleged experiences of the Ibis Hotel the year before. Raise the Roof Hull finds hotel rooms for homeless people every year around Christmastime with one of the recipients last year telling the BBC, ‘it was the best Christmas present you could get, really. It’s such a relief to be off the streets even for that one night.’ The alleged damage to the rooms included setting fires and stealing—claims which the Ibis Hotel has refuted, saying they understood the stays to be ‘very successful’. That The Royal Hotel felt the need to cancel the booking shows the pervasiveness of the stereotypes surrounding homeless people.

The reality of homelessness can be hard for people to accept, especially those feeling shielded by privilege—it’s easy to feel fundamentally ‘better’ than people who end up on the street when you have held a job, or have savings, or own your home. None of these are guarantees you may not one day find yourself in the same position as the people we pass on the streets.

Fixing homelessness starts with a change in attitudes. It starts with ending the dehumanisation people suffering homelessness experience: not only are they separated from society by negative stereotypes, but we call them ‘the homeless’ as if it is their identity, their state of being. It will take continued political will and money to overcome neighbourhood resistance. When Shelter launched in 1966, it aimed to eradicate homelessness within a few years; despite raising millions, this goal was quietly dropped in 1970 as money could not buy a solution. We need to put people’s right to suitable accommodation first and follow Finland’s example.

Remember: homelessness is more than ‘rooflessness’, as Crisis puts it—it’s the lack of stable, secure and affordable accommodation, and the individual is rarely at fault for their new situation. People do not become homeless because they make choices leading them there and they deserve better than the labels we ascribe to them.

How you can help:

Donate your old coats and clothes to charities, especially during the winter months. You can also donate other essentials like tampons, sanitary towels, umbrellas and backpacks—visit Crack + Cider (named after a homeless person said ‘people don’t give me money because they think I’ll spend it on crack and cider’) to buy a range of items to be distributed among homeless people in London and Bournemouth. You can donate your time by volunteering with charities such as Crisis and offer your services as a healthcare professional, activity-leader or stylist providing free haircuts. If you have £28.18, you can give this to Crisis to secure a spot for a homeless person to have a Christmas dinner, which includes food, a bed for the night, a shower, a health check-up and expert help for mental health. Year round, Crisis and Shelter accept donations, and with Shelter, 79p of every pound donated goes towards helping people directly, with 21p going to fundraising.

If you’d rather help directly, ask a homeless person if there’s anything you can get for them when you head for your morning coffee or into your local supermarket. This might be a hot drink, or something to eat but your care and few words will help that person feel less isolated and more visible.